The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Title: The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Alexandra Pic, Isabelle Teboul, Bernard Charnace

This film comes to use from one of the great French horror directors, Jean Rollin. Now this of course depends on who you ask because some critics dismiss Rollin as a pornographer, an amateur filmmaker or simply a maker of sleazy, gratuitous b-movies. But I beg to differ, I really do. Sure Rollin’s films had gratuitous nudity and violence, but to me Rollin’s films are also poetic and haunting and though some of them might come off as empty examples of style over substance, I also find relevant themes in his films. Take for example The Two Orphan Vampires, one look at it and you might say the film is paper thin, with little in the way of plot. And in a way you’d be right, because it is a simple film, but if you give this film a deeper look you’ll find a film that comments on religion and the contrasts between new ways of thinking versus the old.

In The Two Orphan Vampires we meet Henriette and Louise, two young girls living in a catholic orphanage. Their unique situation is that they are both blind, nobody knows why, nobody knows how, they simply are. One day, an ophthalmologist comes visit the orphans to inspect their eyes and soon decides to adopt and take care of them, he becomes their father figure, taking them from the orphanage and welcoming them into his home. The nuns are happy the orphans finally have a home, the orphans are happy they are finally out of the orphanage and the doctor is happy to help these two blind girls. But unbeknownst to all these people, the two orphan girls are only blind during the day! At night they become vampires and can see just fine! When night unfolds, the two girls roam the city streets looking for victims to feed on. How long will they continue this charade before others discover their secret? Will they ever be caught?

Thematically speaking, The Two Orphan Vampires is all about beliefs. First off we have these two girls living a lie. They live in a catholic orphanage, where they give this façade to the nuns, making everybody believe they are these two angelical blind girls. Now the meanings behind the girls being blind while living in a catholic orphanage are pretty obvious, this was Rollin’s way of addressing how religion can blind people, shutting their eyes to the realities of life. Humans are always drawn towards the lurid, seedy aspects of life, this is why the girls go out at night. It’s after they sneak out at night that these girls enjoy life, it’s at night that their vision returns, it’s when they escape the confines of the orphanage that they have their fun in the world, this is the time when they really see life for what it is. A mix of fun and struggle to survive, a dog eat dog world with moments of wonderment as well as suffering, a bitter sweet existence. An interesting aspect of all of this is that the girls are teenagers, a time when most people succumb to the more rebellious aspects of life; the teenage years are a time when you question everything and want to push your limits. This is why the girls escape their elders to smoke their cigarettes and drink their alcohol. So the film depicts two rebellious teenage girls giving their backs to Christianity in order to have their fun in life.

At the same time, the film addresses existential issues. The two orphan vampires are constantly questioning who they are and where they come from. They are vampires who have died many times over and have come back to life, with foggy memories of who they use to be. Problem is they can only remember a few of the lives they have lived, they can’t go that far back into their existence, so they start to wonder who they used to be in earlier lives and they come upon this book about Aztec civilization that gives them the idea that they were these ancient Aztec gods. Kind of like how humanity has a recollection of past civilizations, but at some point our history becomes foggy and we end up asking ourselves where we all really come from? Same as the two orphan vampires, we too have a foggy memory about these things. The two girls can only imagine they were Aztec gods, they are not certain, the same way we cannot find the answers to the big questions in life, so we make up answers and call these answers religion.

The Two Orphan Vampires features Rollin’s signature poetic visuals, the film is also told at Rollins usual slow pace, as if it was in no hurry to tell you its story, it simply unfolds at the pace it wants to whether you like it or not. I’ve grown to like this aspect of Rollins films because to me they are a breath of fresh air when compared to the frenetic pace of some of today’s films. So in that sense Rollin fans will find this to be like many of Rollins other pictures. But where this one takes a left turn is in the absence of nudity and violence, there’s very little of both on this film. Also, those looking for lesbianism will find the film lacking in that aspect as well, for while the girls hug a lot, it is never implied that they are in love. They function more as sisters. There is one scene where they are naked together, but it’s a completely unnecessary scene and seems to be spliced in the movie only to appease the producers who always asked Rollin to fill his films with nudity and violence. When compared to previous Rollin films, this one feels restrained in these areas, which was something that hardcore Rollin fans didn’t like about this film, personally, this didn’t stop me from enjoying this one.

The Two Orphan Vampires was made late in Rollins life, he was into his sixties when he made this one, and very ill I might add, yet the film still retains many of the aesthetically pleasing elements that I enjoyed about his earlier works like The Grapes of Death (1978), The Living Dead Girl (1982) and Fascination (1979), and though this film isn't nearly as good as these I've mentioned, there are still many good things to say about The Two Orphan Vampires, for example, the beautiful localizations are present…this was one thing that Rollin loved about filmmaking, shooting in actual beautiful locations, so we still have these beautiful shots of actual places, sometimes Rollin would compose these shots on the spot, an aspect of his films that I love. True, this is not Rollins best film, it has a few flaws, like the actresses who play the orphan vampires, though beautiful this was the first feature film for both, so sometimes their performance isn’t the best. The bad dubbing kind of hinders the enjoyment of the film; it makes the poetic dialog come off as robotic and unnatural. Still, I enjoyed the visuals, the music and the themes, it is not the disaster that some would have you believe. Sure it was late in Rollins career, but wow, the guy made this film through some serious illness, sometimes going from the hospital to the set, it’s a miracle he managed to pull off a beautiful looking film and on such a low budget! Admirable in deed.

Rating: 3 out of 5     

Requiem for a Vampire (1971)

Title: Requiem for a Vampire (1971)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Marie Pierre Castel,  Mireille Dargent,  Philippe Gaste, Louise Dhour

Review:

Requiem for a Vampire starts off with two teenage girls, dressed as clowns riding a car that’s being chased by another; the passengers of both cars shoot at each other relentlessly. What are these girls  running away from? What happened before? Director Jean Rolling doesn’t want us to know, but apparently it involved a circus, or a clown show of some sort. Nice way to start the movie I must admit, to keep us in mystery as to why these girls are in clown attire, but whatever, it adds to the weird vibe of the film, which by the way just gets weirder and weirder as it goes along. I’m having a blast checking out Jean Rollin’s films, last night I had the pleasure of seeing Requiem for a Vampire for the first time. I have to hand it to Rollin for sticking so obsessively to his favorite genre monsters for practically his whole career; I don’t believe any other director has ever explored vampires on film as extensively as Rollin has. The way I see it, Rollin did for vampire movies what George Romero did with zombie films, he explored them as much as he could, till vampires became synonymous with his name.

Requiem for a Vampire is an early Rollin film, this was Rollin’s fourth film, before it he’d made The Rape of the Vampire (1968), The Nude Vampire (1970) and The Shiver of the Vampires (1971). Requiem for a Vampire is a film that has all the things you can come to expect from a Rollin film, I of course talk about lesbians in love, vampires, bats, graveyards, skulls, castles, beautiful scenery and lots of nudity. The difference is that this one isn’t as poetic or surreal as some of his later work. As some of you might know, Rollin had a background in porn films, and what he’d do is make these vampire films in between some of his hardcore porn films. I haven’t seen his earlier stuff, but it is my estimation that the further back you go in his work, the more porn like his vampire films will be. 

For example, Requiem for a Vampire is filled with a whole lot more sexuality and nudity then other films of his that I have seen. On this one girls are frequently either topless, or being raped, or having sex with each other or with men, I mean the sexual content on this one is extremely high.  These two girls stumble upon a castle filled with violent sexually depraved vampires who start to rape them and torture them in many ways because get this: in this movie, in order to become a full vampire, you cannot be a virgin! You are either one or the other, but not both; so at one point it’s all about these girls losing their virginity! The nudity in Requiem for a Vampire, is not erotic or beautiful as opposed to other Rollin films where it is. On this the sexuality is savage and depraved. This film will probably seem offensive to a lot of people out there, so if you can’t take that sort of thing, then don’t even bother with this one, this is a violent and sexual film every step of the way, strangely enough, there’s also a lot of visual beauty to it which is something that Rolling always excelled at, orchestrating these beautiful images. But then again, you ever wanted to see a bat giving oral sex to a girl? Look no further!  So yeah, expect a Rollin film with a slightly higher sexual content than usual, there's this rape scene that simply takes for ever. 

For a long time, Requiem for a Vampire functions almost like a silent film, with no dialog whatsoever.  In fact the two main characters don’t talk to each other until about fifty minutes into the film! The films entire first half is without dialog, it’s just the girls escaping, running, hiding, having sex with each other and enticing men to have sex with them all without a single word spoken.  It’s a different kind of film in that sense, I guess Rollin did this for the same reason that directors of Spaghetti Westerns used as little dialog as possible: to facilitate and minimize the dubbing process. It could also have something to do with the fact that Rolling wrote this screenplay in a stream of thought sort of way, he wrote it without any constraints in his mind, many say it’s the most purely Rollin film out there, so this makes it an important part of his body of work, many of his later films would have many elements found on Requim for a Vampire, so this is a seminal Rollin film, if you don’t like this one, chances are you won’t like any Rollin film.

Another element that characterizes this film and this is one thing I didn’t really love about it is that it’s kind of cheesy. I mean, the lead vampire that the girls meet, the one that wants to turn them into his vampire lovers…he is this old man, he looks like a washed up Bela Lugosi, dressed in this clichéd red and black cape? So freaking cheesy, this head vampire looked anything but menacing. He looked like this old man dressed up as Dracula? To top things off all the vampires in the film have these ultra fake looking fangs that looked simply terrible. In one scene the vampire can’t even talk right because he is trying to hold the fake fangs in his mouth. I hated that cheesy stuff on this one, because the film looks so beautiful at times, but then bam, the cheesiness sets in and brings it all down. On the plus side; cheesy elements were eschewed in Rollins future films, Rollin got a whole lot more poetic as his films evolved.

Thankfully, the film has more good elements to it than bad ones. Apparently Rollin’s always had an eye for beauty in nature and architecture because once again his cinematic eye focuses on beautiful vistas, trees, mountains, night skies, he often times focuses on breathtaking  sunsets and cloud formations. He also shot the film inside this ancient castle, it just looks haunting. The visual compositions that Rollin comes up with is the element of his films I love the most and on Requiem for a Vampire he demonstrates that he’s always had that eye for beauty. All in all, this is an extremely simplistic film, Rolling himself says that it was an exercise in simplifying the structure of film, the film is a stream of consciousness effort, something coming straight out of Rollins mind; this is probably why the film has such an emphasis on sex and violence, two of the most purely human traits. This is very much a Rollin film, only a bit cheesier and a times even child like. It seems to me that Rollin’s body of work is one that should be explored by any self respecting lover of vampire films. I love how his films all have a familiarity to them; Rollin has said that his films function as a series of connected dreams and stories, and I believe him. When you watch his films you feel as if they all exist within the same universe, a universe I will be visiting more frequently in the days to come.

Rating:  4 out of 5

The Grapes of Death (1978)

Title: The Grapes of Death (1978)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Brigitte Lahaie, Marie Georges Pascal, Mirella Rancelot

Review:

I am quickly learning there are various elements one can come to expect from a Jean Rollin film: girls, nudity, lesbians, gore, shock value, heavy atmosphere and blood, blood, blood; all great elements if you’re making a horror film, which is what Rollin specialized in. I am quickly absorbing many of Rollin’s films and I have to say, I have an affinity for them. I really like all that he achieved with so little money. I understand the kind of films he made, and admire him for making such beautiful looking films on such low budgets. How did Rollin achieve so much with so little? Well, basically, Rollin spent a lot of his time as a pornographer. For example, the film he made before The Grapes of Death was something called Hyperpenetrations (1978) and the one he made after it was called Discosex (1978). But the artist in Rollin wasn’t just satisfied with making porn, he wanted more! So he often times suggested his producers to fund a real film with the same amount of money it costs to make a porn film. He would use porn stars for his films; and you know how that goes: you give a porn star the chance to be in a real film and of course they’ll jump at a chance to do it. It is a step up for them; it’s something they can finally show their mom. This is no longer just porn, this is a real film we’re talking about here! So this is the reason why Rollin always had such sultry looking ladies in his films, this was also the case with The Grapes of Death, a film filled with luscious looking women running from the undead.

The film starts out with these men spraying pesticide on a crop of grapes. One of them doesn’t feel so good, but his boss tells him to continue working no matter what. We are then presented with these two girls traveling on an eerily empty train, their destinations are different, yet they travel together for companionship. On one of the train stops, the sick man who was spraying the crops, boards the train and sits next to one of the girls. At first there is nothing weird about him save for his awkward behavior. But soon, his face starts to degenerate and blood starts coming out of his pores! He is suffering from some sort of infection! The girl, terrified,  gets off the train looking for help but she only ends up stumbling upon more sick people, worst part is they are not only sick, they are violent as well! What the hell is going on? Why is the world now populated by violence, death and destruction? Elizabeth will soon discover the truth about The Grapes of Death!

So again, what I enjoyed about this film is what I have enjoyed about all of the Jean Rollin films I have seen:  the atmosphere, the mood, the ambiance. Rollin shot these films for very little money, so he did what any low budget filmmaker would do to make the most of his films: he shot in amazing looking locations. Great chateaus, abandoned locales, places with ancient architecture; he really exploited the use of interesting looking locations. Add a bit of mist, the howling sound of the wind and voila! Your movie is instantly creepier. This is something Rollin understood quite well for The Grapes of Death is a film in which the wind is blowing all of the time. This is something that a lot of directors don’t understand, but the sound the wind makes is something that adds a great level of spookiness to any horror film. Fulci used this sound effect a lot; Fellini used the hell out of it too and Rollin uses it to great effectiveness here.  The localizations he used for the film add a tremendous feeling of isolation, starting with the lonely train, followed by these beautiful (yet spooky) looking landscapes and finally, the eerie village where most of the action takes place in. So this is a great example of a director making a film better simply because he has an eye for beauty, something that is often times taken for granted by modern filmmakers. 

Most of the time, Rollin specialized in making vampire films like Requiem for a Vampire (1971), The Rape of the Vampire (1968) or The Silver of the Vampires (1971). Sometimes his films would be a strange hybrid between a zombie film and vampire film like for example The Living Dead Girl (1982), where I wasn’t quite sure if it was one or the other and sometimes he’d venture into the zombie genre. I personally didn’t like Zombie Lake (1981), I consider it a low point in Rollins career, but with The Grapes of Death he made a full blown zombie flick that I found completely satisfying. The Grapes of Death is something along the lines of The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue (1974) where people are infected by some kind of toxic that makes them violent and crazy, the same thing happens on The Grapes of Death;  it’s the pesticide used on the crops that turns people into zombies. The zombies in The Grapes of Death degenerate both psychologically and physically; but they don’t completely lose consciousness, they know what they are and what is happening to them, they just can’t control it or their violent urges. So these zombies are unique in the sense that they are conscious of their decomposing state and they hate themselves for it.  

As a zombie film, I’d say this is a very satisfying one. It has a strange eeriness to it; things slowly creep up on you until you are right smack in the middle of zombie chaos. Rollin’s films are deliberately slow paced, building up on the atmosphere, but then at some point you can rest assured that Rollin will flat out shock you. Rollin’s loves to take you by surprise! In terms of gore, the film is pretty impressive! If there’s something that distinguishes a Rollin film it’s a well orchestrated gore scene. On this one we get one of the best decapitations I have EVER seen on any film. I remember The Living Dead Girl delivered the best scene of a vampire/zombie feeding on human flesh…well, on this one we get an extremely memorable decapitation by axe that will leave you gasping for more. In conclusion, I have to say this was a great zombie flick, I loved many things about it and practically found nothing I didn’t like, another plus being that we get beautiful girls left and right! Brigitte Lahaie, one of Rollin favorite actresses and all around muse returns looking as sensual as she always did in Rollin’s films. Highly recommend this French zombie film, it shows you don’t need a lot money to make a satisfying and entertaining film, all you need is talent and if you ask me, Rollin, with his artful eye, had it to spare.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Fascination (1979)

Title: Fascination (1979)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast:  Franca Mai, Brigitte Lahaie, Jean Marie Lemaire, Fanny Magier

Review:

I’m quickly learning that watching a Jean Rollin picture is a special kind of experience.  He made many films, of course not all of them are good, but the ones that are special are sultry, sensual, artful experiences. These are films in which people talk in whispers and the wind blows in the middle of the night; of empty chateaus’ with lonely lovers expecting death to come visit them in the middle of the night. Oh Rollin, where the hell have you been all my life? I love these freaking movies!  

In Fascination we first meet Mark, a thief who has just stolen a bounty of golden coins. He decides to ditch the thieves that helped him pull of the heist and runs off with the gold. While on the run he comes upon an apparently empty castle where he decides to hide until the night comes, so he can later escape under the cover of the night. Problem is this chateau is not empty, he soon realizes that it is inhabited by two women: Eva and Elisabeth. To him they are easy prey, lonely women in an empty castle, Mark seems to think things are looking up for him, that this night might turn up better then expected; but are these women as innocent as they seem? Is there something more to these women than meets the eye?

It’s easy to say that Rollin’s films are exploitative and trashy, but I honestlyI don’t see them that way. Yeah they got nudity in them, and in Fascination’s case there’s lots of it, but it’s not done in bad taste in my opinion. This is a very sensual film, and while the film does have ample nudity, the female form is displayed in a very beautiful way, never in a disrespectful or demeaning matter. The last time I saw a truly sensual and beautiful love scene between two lesbian characters was in David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001). In that film Naomi Watts and Laura Harring really go down on each other. That was a steamy scene that was very erotic, yet there was emotion and beauty to it, in my opinion it didn’t feel exploitative. There’s a similar scene on Fascination where the two female vampire lovers go at each other that is a heavy contender for hottest lesbian sex scene on film and again, it’s a beautiful scene and I’m not just saying that because I’m a guy, well maybe a little, but you know what I mean, it’s not trashy or cheap, you feel there’s genuine affection between these two characters.

Aesthetically speaking, the shots Rollin chose, the compositions he made with the camera, and the localizations where Rollin chose to shoot this film all add up to a really beautiful looking film. I love it when a horror film is artful and beautiful, it kind of elevates the horror film, it turns it more than just a film that’s trying to be shocking or scary, this in my opinion is what Rollin does with his films. Take for instance the beautiful chateau he chose to shoot Fascination in…just otherworldly in a way. It is surrounded by a moat, and there’s a mist all around it, dead trees…but it’s all naturally that way, it’s not a set which is something I love about Rollin’s films, he never really used sets much, probably due to budget limitations, but it all works in the films favor in the end.  The castle has this bridge which Rollin uses extensively all throughout the film, it looks great, it becomes a pivotal part of the film. I mean, European filmmakers end up making their films in such beautiful locations that you can’t find anywhere else, in that way, they are fortunate. But then there’s the small visual touches Rollin gives the film, like having the vampire girls walking around in these dresses that undulate when the wind hits them; or shooting in the middle of a dreary, cold day. So with Fascination you can expect a film that deals with horror elements, but portrayed in a beautiful, seductive and atmospheric way.  

In terms of the story, well, it’s simple in nature, but it has this aura of suspense to it. We are intrigued all throughout. Rollin really turned this one into an exercise in suspense. We want to know what’s going to happen, what is this ominous event that is going to take place? I think this is probably why the film is called Fascination. Of course it could also have something to do with the fascination the vampires in the film feel for blood. This film isn’t as gory as The Living Dead Girl (1982) was and the ending doesn't pack as much of a wallop as The Living Dead Girls ending does, but it still manages to augment the vampires fascination and lust for blood. It feels to me that what Rollin did with The Living Dead Girl was take the ideas he played with in Fascination and took them a bit further, The Living Dead Girl feels a bit more realized in a sense, edgier, bloodier. But don't worry my friends, blood and the color red are always present in one form or another. The vampire angle is kind of subtle, but in the end it’s unmistakably a vampire film and a damn good one. I’m beginning to get fascinated by Rollin’s artful horror films, they mix fright with sensuality, plus, they are drenched with atmosphere, I’m really looking forward to exploring more of his oeuvre!  

Rating: 4 out of 5  

The Living Dead Girl (1982)

Title: The Living Dead Girl (1982)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Marina Pierro, Francoise Blanchard, Carina Barone, Mike Marshall

Review:

My first experience with a Jean Rollin film was Zombie Lake (1981), and obviously, if you have seen Zombie Lake then you know that wasn’t the best place to start. Zombie Lake is a terribly boring Nazi zombie flick. I’m guessing Rollin wasn’t too proud of that one since he worked under the ‘J.A. Lazer’ moniker for that film. Calling a Rollin film ‘boring’ is a common reaction amongst those who experience his films, because Rollin often times went for dreamy atmosphere and slow paced scenes with little dialog. Personally, I dig this kind of storytelling, the kind that relies more on stories told through visuals alone rather than dialog. ‘La Morte Vivante’, a.k.a. The Living Dead Girl, a.k.a. Queen Zombie, is an amazing film told through this type of dreamy, slow paced little dialog type style, which fit this film perfectly. I’m trying to watch a lot of Euro horror these days and catch up with all of these horror films that I haven’t seen and I have to say, so far, I’m really diggin’ some of these films. The Living Dead Girl is a fantastic lesbian vampire/zombie film, why did I dig it so much?

Story revolves around Catherine Valmont and her best friend Helene. They are two women who grew up together and lived through various experiences during their childhood, like becoming blood sisters; the old childhood ritual where two kids cut themselves, unite their blood and become friends for life. One promises the other that if one of them dies, the other will follow. Well, Catherine ends up dying and she is buried in the crypt of her very own castle. Lucky for her that an earthquake spills a vat of toxic chemicals near her coffin and the toxic mist brings her back to life! Catherine and Helene reunite, but is Catherine the same old Catherine? Nope; now Catherine is a member of The Living Dead! What’s Helene to do?

The Living Dead Girl falls in the same category as films like Hammer films The Vampire Lovers (1970), Harry Kumel’s Daughters ofDarkness (1971) and Tony Scott’s The Hunger (1983); these are all lesbian vampire movies that for whatever the reason are all excellent horror films, very artful, very well shot, well acted and interestingly enough, they never forget to be horror films. The Living Dead Girl also falls in that strange middle ground between a vampire film and a zombie film. The same thing happened to me with The Revenant (2009) and Deathdream (1974). I simply couldn’t tell if these films were zombie films or vampire films. For example, The Living Dead Girl starts out with two grave robbers, stealing jewelry from the dead. While they are down in the crypts, an earthquake erupts and a toxic spill brings back Catherine Valmont from the dead. This opening sequence quickly brought to mind Return of the Living Dead (1985) which also starts out with grave robbers and chemical spills. The title, The Living Dead Girl also suggests it’s a zombie film; in fact, one of this films alternate titles is ‘Queen Zombie’. But then, as you watch the film, you see Catherine Valmont acting more like a vampire with her lust for human blood. Just like a vampire, she hates animal blood and must feed on warm human blood. But then she feeds on human flesh with the voraciousness of a zombie, so yeah, to me, this is one of those films that falls in that strange place that mixes vampires and zombies, though there were moments in which the films hints that its more of a vampire film. 

As I watched this tale unfold, I couldn’t help relating the dynamics between the characters of Catherine and Helene with that of the passionately in love characters in Clive Barker’s Hellraiser (1987). In both of these films we meet characters that are willing to do anything for their objects of affection. In Hellraiser, we meet a woman willing to bring victims to her lover who’s just escaped from hell, so he can feed on them and grow a new body. In The Living Dead Girl we have a very similar structure, Helene starts bringing victims for Catherine so she can feed on them. She knows she’s doing wrong, but she does it anyway, to please her loved one. Earlier I mentioned that The Living Dead Girl portrays a lesbian love affair, but in truth the lesbian angle is only implied. One gets this idea because Helene and Catherine are so passionate for each other, willing to go to such lengths to please each other. They never kiss or become intimate, but one gets the idea that they have because of their obsession and obvious love for each other.

The Living Dead Girl is awesome for the same reason that Kumel’s Daughters of Darkness was awesome, it mixes the art house film with the horror film. The Living Dead Girl has these beautiful shots, haunting imagery but at the same time it doesn’t forget that it’s a horror film and suddenly, it takes outs its claws and reminds you. Yes my friends, I’m happy to inform that The Living Dead Girl is a distinctively savage horror film. Catherine Delmont has these long finger nails which she effectively uses to kill her victims; wow, some awesomely gruesome moments awaits, in fact, right from the get go you’ll be treated to some gruesome mayhem. In the end, it truly surprised me that The Living Dead Girl was directed by the same guy who made Zombie Lake, funny thing is both of these films were made months apart, how can a director go from crap to awesome in the blink of an eye? Ask Jean Rollin, because he knows how to do it perfectly well! This film is so superior! Francoise Blanchard does a great job as The Living Dead Girl, she comes off as someone disconnected from being a human, a tortured soul coming to terms with what she is becoming; a character that’s becoming more and more instinctive and animal like in nature. And speaking of animal like, this film has one of the best and most savages scenes I have ever seen of a living dead feeding on a human being. It is such a savagely graphic scene, definitely one for the books! This scene alone makes it worthwhile to seek this one out, but in reality, the whole film is awesome. The only downside for me is that some of the performances don’t come off as natural or particularly good, especially when it comes to the actors portraying the Americans tourists, but for me this was a small hiccup in an otherwise great film. Highly recommend this one!

Rating: 4 out of 5